On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:42:17AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:18:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:15:56AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:31:07AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:59:05AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's just get one thing straight: FFmpeg != you.
> > > >
> > > > I did not claim this, but ffmpeg is even less you. Still you threaten
> > > > to make decissions about ffmpegs developers based on what you think
> > > > is best or what you think is a consensus amongth the active developers.
> > > > Why is it that you think that your oppinion about a consensus amongth
> > > > the active developers is better than the ffmpeg maintainers oppionion
> > > > about a consensus amongth the active developers?
> > > > After all ive not acted against the oppinon of the majority ever
> > > > still you repeatly emphasize that you wont listen to me.
> > >
> > > That is not true, you act according to your own best judgement,
> > > regardless of where the majority lies.
> >
> > I act according to the majority on the mailinglist normally, i guess you
> > might be able to find exceptions but this isnt that common. And certainly
> > never when it comes to organisatorial things like crating mailinglists,
> > i might ignore a majority if its about code and sufficiently silly.
>> What is "the majority of the mailing list"? A majority of the
> developers disagreed with you about spelling,
And iam trying to spell correctly, so ive followed that request.
You can claim iam not good enough, and you can also claim i dont
reread what i write 5 times. But dont claim i dont try to spell
correctly. That just is a unjustified attack.
> a majority also has a
> different attitude towards compiler warnings,
Please start a vote on this, no iam serious
if >50% of the developers are in favor of
"lets remove as many warnings as possible as long as it doesnt slow down
the code, makes it unreadable or bloated" then iam not against adding such
a rule to the policy and following it
> I'm not even sure a
> majority shares your super-strict coding standards.
What are "super-strict coding standards" ?
I cant comment on such vague concepts
>> But this is besides the point. I do not think of this project as a
> democracy, nor do I expect it to be one. It is a dictatorship with you
> - the benevolent dictator sometimes affectionately referred to as "evil
> overlord" ;p - at its helm. However, if you think of it as anything
> else, you are mistaken.
Iam only ffmpeg leader/evil overlord as long as people want me to be that.
People can just leave or fork or even start a vote to elect someone else.
I would step back from my position as ffmpeg leader if a majority of
developers would want that.
The term dictator is a little out of place
IMO, i cant dictate anything. Not even the svn accounts easily since the
takeover of root at mphq by you and mans.
In this respect you and mans are the dictators, your decissions arbitary
not based on a vote, not based on an elected position. Just by the fact
that you volunteered as root. Hidden behind shiny terms like "meritocracy"
where is your merrit for the position of deciding who should have write
access?
And yes we happened to agree on who should have write access so far. Or
at least root followed my requests so far about it.
I dont mind being called evil overlord, the term is cute and maybe i should
put a sign with it on my door :)
But dont call me non-democratic unless there was a proper vote amongth the
developers which i ignored!
[...]
> > also i feel people should send me a mail and complain if they think i treat
> > them unfairly. I dont remember anyone ever complained to me until now ...
>> As I said, few people dare stand up to you.
Thats something i can not do much about.
[...]
>> > * not following democratic vote on mplayer-dev-eng about uotis account
>> Democracy is more than just voting, you need a constitution. You could
> say that the policy document is such a thing, but it says nothing about
> voting or when an account should or will be revoked.
You dont need a constitution, a constitution can help clarify some things
but its not strictly essential. Any group of N people can just vote about
something without writing a constitution first.
>> MPlayer is not a democracy. It used to be a dictatorship run by Arpi,
> nowadays decisions are taken based on consensus, for better or worse.
> That voting was a bad idea in the first place and it was never clear who
> should be allowed to vote on what grounds, but all of this is besides
> the point.
At the point where you claim that voting failed to reach the same result
as your consensus, you admit that your consensus is based on a selected
minority. That being fairly obvious per definition as the majority voted
differently.
And this is just another way of saying you acted based on your personal
oppinion not on what the majority wanted.
And yes you did call everyone on the phone back then and convinced us
its better the way you like it. But there was no second vote confirming
that new "consensus".
>> In the end a consensus was reached not to revoke Uoti's account. You
> were a pivotal part of that decision and you announced it on the mailing
> list[1]. You may regret your role now, but you cannot renounce it.
> When you point a finger at me (because that's what you do when you
> speak of root@) and accuse me of evil deeds, that finger is pointing
> right back at you.
Well you convinced me to write this when you called me. Yes i wrote it but
it was intended as a second chance for uoti. Not the card blanche he seems
to take it as.
On the phone your primary argument was that the svn policy was unclear and
that it should be clarified so you could take action against uoti when
he violated it again. Neither has happened. May i ask you why not?
[...]
> > iam sure i could find more ...
>> No, you could not. What's more, I could find countless times where we
> have provided swift and high-quality service to this project. In fact,
> you are the only person that has ever complained.
People are affraid to stand up and voice their oppinion against root.
There are several who have voiced their oppinion per private mail to me
about root and you personally.
>> And you still haven't answered why you are batching us together into a
> faceless root@ conglomerate.
Because i mean root@, if id mean a specific member id use his name.
All members of root@ have to take equal responsibiliy for roots actions
IMO. It would be wrong to blame a single member.
>> Anyway, I'm not trying to pour gasoline on the flames here.
Oddly, i dont have that feeling at all.
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the
dead. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080129/edc1cccf/attachment.pgp>